Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Strike Down the Ban

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

This morning, the Supreme Court held oral arguments for the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The issue at stake is whether a DC ban on handguns (shotguns are not banned) is constitutional. Because of a lack of precedents on the Second Amendment, today's case, DC v. Heller, grants substantial authority to the current Justices to decide whether there exists a right to own a gun.

There are a number of ways the Court can rule on this case. The Justices can argue there exists an individual right to bear arms or they can state the constitutional grants no such right. Moreover, if the Court establishes the right to bear arms, they can decide what level of regulations can be placed on guns.

If the Court does not agree on a right to own guns, the right to self defense will be greatly impeded. DC is a dangerous city. Banning guns only takes away the guns from law abiding citizens. Criminals do not hand them over. Police response times will never be fast enough to defend all citizens from attackers. When the police can not guarantee safety, as in DC, people should have the ability own a handgun to protect themselves.

Furthermore, the underlying reason for the right to bear arms is to prevent tyranny. Without the ability to bear arms, the ability to form a militia is crushed. Armed citizens serve as a check against governmental power. If citizens are disarmed, government will greatly hamper resistance if tyranny is to occur. As Justice Scalia stated today, "The two clauses (of the Second Amendment) go together beautifully." In order to have a non state sponsored militia, people must retain the right to bear arms.

The first battles of the American Revolution were fought to prevent British troops from confiscating American military supplies. The Supreme Court must not allow the confiscation of our guns two centuries after the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

1 comment:

Michelle said...

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/03/18/
(It's the third post down from the top.)

This blog post from the Wall Street Journal Online's Law Blog provides some further insight into this matter for those who are not as familiar with the case. If this blogger's analysis is correct, it appears that the Supreme Court may not have completely lost touch with the importance of individual rights, particularly in the case of Second Amendment rights.